Magic Lantern enables Canon 5D Mark III Raw video output

Camera feature modifier Magic Lantern has developed a version of its software enabling 24fps Raw video output from the Canon EOS 5D Mark III. This news has grabbed videographers' full attention as it allows for individual frames of 14 bit output, yielding a much wider dynamic range than you'd get from standard 8 bit video files.

The Raw-video code isn't yet publicly available, but EOSHD's Andrew Reid has got his hands on an early, development-stage version of the software.

As always, even once made public, Magic Lantern warns that its software has been created by reverse engineering and cannot be guaranteed 100% safe. The camera output isn't in any standard format but it should be possible to transcode it into a more conventional format, such as CinemaDNG.

Click through to EOSHD.com to find out what makes Reid think 'the world just exploded.'

Well, "anything" above standard would commands higher price for video maker. :)At least they could brag on "Technical issues" despite video techniques would be way more important, but what do clients know :D(test chart & benchmark numbers are easy to compare).

Hopefully, with this, Nikon would realize and allow full/partial access to their codes/SDK/Library/etc. to developers/hackers.

Or maybe they still content with "Best consumer DSLR sensor" (based on DXOmark).

It just sucks that Canon keeps winning the video war despite itself. First, they accidentally started the modern Indie filmmaking revolution with the 5DII, and now a ragtag team of hackers opens up more sales for them. If Canon had its way, it would protect its high end lines by continuing to cripple its entry and prosumer models, as it's been doing for years now. That the camera is capable of 14bit RAW video and yet they limited it to a minor upgrade from the 5DII at 8-bit says everything you need to know about the company's intentions.

It's a shame, because Blackmagic actually gave filmmakers everything they wanted at an unbeatable price, and then Canon hackers swoop in and make Canon the default again. I'll still keep my Pocket Camera preorder – still an insane deal – but the idea of having a full-frame RAW video camera, also capable of great stills (though I prefer Nikon), makes it an unbeatable option.

Canon is an established company seeking into maintaining its position through expensive marketing strategies, BM has to build its market share, no surprise it has to give all it has to offer. We are not talking of altruism, just strategies to win or maintain the market.To some extent I'd rather stick with a company that does know how to live even if I have to accept market games. At least I have a certain security that my thousands of dollars of gear are well invested. We have seen that even unquestionable giants (Kodak...) might have questionable future...

This hack is taking the IQ from a $3500 camera to what only cameras of >$15K can do. (well, maybe the Sony FS700, at $10K with the RAW recorder, could fight this too).

So, a couple of Transcend 128GB 1000x cards for $700 and you have an awesome movie-making machine with storage for 48 minutes of footage. Not bad if you ask me. But not for everybody, of course (working with these RAW files is painful).

Edit: these cards:http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B009S61AFQ/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B009S61AFQ&tag=similaar-20&linkCode=as2

You'd have to be daft to use a RAW video workflow for weddings; this is far better suited to more deliberate, planned workflows. Nevertheless it is still possible to use RAW for things like documentaries, as evidenced by e.g. this: http://nofilmschool.com/2012/10/blackmagic-cinema-camera-mini-documentary-philip-bloom-ponte-tower/

Even for entry level like 550D or 600D, you could get HDR Video, needs PP though; but nevertheless of the problems, you could do it, unlike anything from Nikon.With HDR video, you could almost compete with tens of thousands of dollars camera (Arri, Red, Black Magic, etc. 14 EV DR People!!!)

Don't really care about bitrate, youtube and the likes are compressing video so badly, means no problem with BR as long as it's higher than those websites.But DR is very crucial in Video cause you can't fix what you don't have (blown highlights or black shadows).

Dont think that Canon is so generous. Quoting from above: "As always, even once made public, Magic Lantern warns that its software has been created by reverse engineering and cannot be guaranteed 100% safe."

Key word here is "reverse engineering" meaning someone took up the painstaking job of trying to decrypt the camera's coding by monitoring what the camera is doing (by analysing camera dumps), then construct code that matches as close as possible that of what Canon engineers are actually using.

Since reverse engineering is effectively trying to recreate the SDK's and libraries, it will never be 100% complete hence the warning about 100% safety

Reid announces he is breaking up with his great passion, the Black Magic cameras, and is now going back to his old love, the 5D, with its RAW makeover, courtesy of Magic Lantern. All very magical, surely.

Anyway, the test video does little to support the praise made for RAW. The shots of the border collies and woman are blurry, and so is the red hull of a sailboat in another. The results may be as dependent on the scene, lens, or post-processing, as they are on the codec. All must go through the same meat-grinder of compression. Might most viewers see substantially the same result if the shots came from a D5200 or even a humble LX7. Once compressed to 5mbps for streaming, what does it matter whether the original was shot at 17mbps or 90mbps? Does anyone guage the cost and time RAW adds to work in terms of equipment, memory space, or CS subsciption time and learning? The camera body and the codec turn out to be a tiny factor in the end. Music is a great vote-getter.

jkoch2... why so negative? Are you mad bro? I think this shows just how bad Vimeo's 720p compression degrades high quality sources. There are definitely better ways to get 720p. It would probably look much better on Youtube 1080p. Anyway, Download the original 1080p mp4 file from the Vimeo download button and have a look for yourself.

You dare fault Vimeo? Some prefer it. The point is that the sample shots suggest nothing superior about using raw. There's no side-by-side comparison. The stationary low contrast shots (tree) look OK but not better, the high contrast (red sail boat) shot bleeds, and the motion (walking woman) is smudgy. RAW frame grabs might be superior, and it may favor high-end editing, but not survive compression to what people actually see.

jkoch2, what is your agenda? Something is making you blind to the truth here. This raw video is an incredible breakthrough for the 5D3. Listen, Vimeo is only 720p for free users. You have to pay them to be able to show your videos in 1080p.

Did you download the original 1080p? I put it on a memory card last night and watched it on a 50" TV. It looked better than any DSLR video I have ever seen. It is VASTLY, HUGELY better than standard 5D3 video. It's literally a different camera.

What is your problem?? Are you downloading the files or watching the lower res compressed streaming samples? If you watch the downloaded stuff are you using a proper video player?? You must be joking if you think the D5200 does anything like this get real!

Might be tough to do since the Nikon liveview is so crummy and choppy and the liveview system is what this hack hooks into. Never say never but I have a feeling Nikon DSLR are not capable of doing this, at least not the recent ones with the choppy liveview. I forget but I think there is also some other tricky issue with hacking Nikon.

Could you please elaborate? Why is the Canon's video "by a massive gulf" better than the Nikon's? Also, I'm not finding any comparison video on youtube comparing the Canons and Nikons. Could you please add a link?

Uncompressed is already processed, not raw (which can benefit from entirely different re-processing without loss). Such DR would be possible on uncompressed video-out if ADL was working on-line. The difference is also that uncompressed video output requires a separate recording device.

1st of all, the topic of the original news post and below text is irrelevant to most dpreview readers. This may sound snob. But it is true.

D600 and D800's "uncompressed" video output via HDMI is unusable at a production level due to moire, aliasing and other artifacts. These problems comes into the video feed along the processing pipeline. There's no single magic pill to fix it.

5D3's 1080p feed (soon to be "uncompressed" with firmware update) is better vs. D800 in terms of moire and aliasing but suffers from low resolution.

Now, the significance of Magic Lantern's RAW video output is to bypass 5D3's process pipeline and directly dump the RAW data at 24p or 30p framerate to the CF card.

With the cutting-edge Signal-to-Noise ratio and the enormous 35mm full-frame sensor area, coupled with powerful processing from a PC, you get the Arri level of image quality out of 5D3.

This is HUGE for the people who want CINEMA quality out of sub $5K hardware.

very happy to see ML unlocking for us what Canon is unwilling to do, or Canon is hoping to hold back and 'reserve slower for future' model updates.

so... it means Canon's 'sensor tech' is not as bad as detractors claim, as Canon has now been clearly caught 'dumbing down' their products on the software side, not the hardware side. granted, it committing to software sophistication too early means patents get more complicated if they want to keep the 'release time/schedule' slower for 'future profits sake' (that is, if one releases a 'great idea too soon', it's patent life is prematurely shortened for 'profitable future variation')

it's great to have those like ML around to force a mfr's hand 'early', which forces them to 'let go' of better ideas (release) sooner/ahead of schedule than a mfr would like. haha: great for us!

Ironic, Canon is vindicated in other respects wrt their sensor tech they've been holding their cards much too close to their chest for much too long: no more!

Well, I'm happy to see this as well, but Canon's sensors haven't all of a sudden improved over night. Same old low DR, noisier at low ISOs, compared to Nikon, Sony and friends that is. Raw video output is to do with software and other hardware, such as processor, not the sensor, like with being able to output raw photos, many cameras do that now, some compact cameras that don't have great sensors as well.But now raw video output means the best of the sensor's output is in use, and that's a solid difference to compete with others not outputting raw at all, and this could mean a huge impact on the market... other lower end cameras outputting raw video? I would like to see compressed raw like from the Black Magic Pocket camera, though that system may no longer have an impact with this ML hack moving ahead

I don't think 'reserve slower for future' is the only reason they locked this feature down(but I don't reject the idea either!). Think about computer overclocking, it's doable, but risky. Any sane manufacturer will advise user to use their product within safe usage levels. This raw feature should be used with a large sign of "use it with your own risk".

I personally got a bit sick of hearing how much better the sony/nikon sensors are. Granted, they offer better dynamic range, but where that is not required I think Canon is as good if not better. I.e. highlight clipping and skin tones rendering. Larger dynamic range is a huge benefit but not everything. Not to mention that in order to truly benefit from the extended HDR pictures need to be underexposed all the time.

Well true and false. There hardware has turned out to be mind-blowingly good for video and the new sensor they made especially to produce better video sure the heck does. They simply then hid it all for whatever reason. But yeah the video hardware in it turns out to be mind blowingly better than that in the Nikons or Sonys and clearly better than that of even the Panasonics.

But for stills it still has the same old weak dynamic range at low ISO and gets blown away by D800 for low iso high mp slow fps work.

They didn't "hid" it... The difference in the video above is mainly the result of DCT based compression, if you take the nice looking RAW video and compress it with Canons h.264 implementation with the same settings the camera uses you will end up with something that looks almost the same as the stock video file the camera creates! And just in case... I was involved in the development of actual MPEG4 ASP and AVC implementations, so I know what I'm talking :)

Soulhunter - No, the codec isn't what's killing it my friend - if that were true, when you hook up an external recorder and record PRORES @ 220 megabit it'd suddenly be fine. It's barely any different - the H.264 codec is very efficient. I can show you some raw Canon footage encoded with H.264 - you're way off here brother.

Let's not forget global shutter, and an array of physical outputs, compatibility with many industry standard hardware, and as mentioned above, a lot more DR for the cinema look, and for flexibility in all situations. And I agree about the frame rate as well, so far 24FPS seems to be it for the MarkIII, high end cameras doing a lot more with that, when you want at least 60 for some slow mo. Still, if I can get faster cards, and the hack becomes available on the Mark II (so far, kind of) then I will have to try it out once it matures for better workflow

My point was that once these DSLRs start to output RAW, the IQ at normal shooting speeds (24fps) and 2k resolution (which still is the standard for most productions) is basically the same between cine cameras and DSLRs.

The same for all real purposes. Sure someone will test them at the extreme ends of the chart, and find hair-splitting differences.

My point is that regardless of price difference, the RAW output from both will be near identical for all practical purposes.

PS: don't get fooled thinking the more resolution, wooow, instantly the better.

Cine cameras do not sell by megapixels like the consumer oriented D800.

A proper high quality 2k camera is still the most desirable for big budget productions, and it's "only" 2k, just like your DSLR.

There's still a difference between the quality you get out of an Alexa or Red Epic and the quality of the raw video from the Mk. III both in terms of resolution and exposure latitude.

Raw files don't magically increase image quality -- they only increase image FLEXIBILITY. The jump in IQ in the Mk. III's raw output compared to its compressed video is an exceptional anomaly; most cameras have virtually the same resolution between the two formats (compare the 5D's JPEG and RAW still images, for instance). So, now that the Mk. III shoots raw, it has the same level of post-production flexibility as an Alexa or Red (which is awesome, don't get me wrong!).

I don't want to downplay the Mk. III's raw -- it's amazing and groundbreaking -- but context is important. Raw isn't what made the Alexa popular; most productions using the Alexa don't shoot raw on it -- they shoot ProRes because the image still looks just as great, despite losing the editing flexibility.

I'm a loyal reader of EOSHD and I have learnt a lot from their posts. Definitely a must-read for any aspiring movie or film-maker.

I've followed the RAW video ability story from early on and I was not convinced this was doable. So this is rather unbelievable and a huge news.

If you look at the DR in sample screen grab or read the prior posts by EOSHD on this topic you will see an enormous improvement both on ER and details.

Among critics 5D III footage is soft and in actuality many complaint the video resolution is far below the stated 1080P. The RAW video brings such a beautiful detail as compared to canon's output footage that this will make canon's 5D III (and hopefully 5DII) into the ultimate indie filmmaker tool. For now many shooters are using the ML hacked GH2 but micro 4/3 crop doesn't have the the same look as the 5DIII full-frame and if ML can pull this off you will see a ton of movies on TV Shows, and indie movies produced by this camera.

There's little to no chance of this being used on a TV production.Any production with a substantial budget and insurance to worry about most likely won't touch this because of the nature of it being a hack. Even if it's proven to work reliably, it's still outside the regular functionality of the camera and would probably be deemed an insurance risk.

Canon definitely won't like Magic Lantern since they're loosing control over what features are enabled or disabled. The 6D is a great example of how Canon purposely handicaps a camera in multiple ways. The question is whether Canon will attempt to block Magic Lantern by a firmware update or make Magic Lantern really difficult/impossible to implement in future cameras. And of course, they can always sue.

Well a Yaris does not have a V8 engine that is using only 6 cylinders because Toyota wants to sell another car for more money. The capability is there in the Canon camera you just haven't had the ability to access it. Big difference. I am not sure Canon can do anything about it except void your warranty. I can put a different OS on my computer, once I own it I can do whatever I want. Just like putting a super charger on a car, if the engine blows its on me. Federal court just ruled that phone companies cannot prevent you from jail breaking your phone if it is yours and not under contract. I cannot see how Canon can prevent me from changing the Camera or prevent a group from helping. It gets even harder since ML is not even charging.

Guys, Nikon does it too, not just Canon. When you see a maker disabling a feature that has nothing to do with hardware (for example, no bracketing in a lower cost model), what do you think that is? Your allegations that this isn't happening is just myopic and naïve.

"According to your definition of 'handicap', Toyota handicaps the Yaris by not equipping it with a V8 engine."No. According to Benarm's definition, it would be exactly like Toyota putting a V8 on every Lexus — only to disable the fuel injection to 2 cylinders on the V6 models so they can charge more for the fully functional V8 version.

I'd say it's closer to Toyota placing an electronic rev limiter on their car which limits its top speed to 130 mph. Then, Magic Lantern comes along and removes the rev limiter allowing the car to generate more power at higher RPMs and to exceed 150 mph.The downside might be that the engine wasn't tested to handle those high RPMs, and the frame wasn't tested to handle those high speeds. So, the car wears out faster and is at risk of breaking down. In the event it needs to go in for repairs, insurance might not cover it since the user had modified the car outside its original parameters.

it's kind of stupid to compare it to the alexa ... (the alexa has so many other things that matter !)

i would compare it to the bmc though... (bmc will clearly be better at 4k, and maybe at full hd, it will be capable of recording more time and more surely, but you can't neglect the fact that there you just buy the striped down video camera and not a photo camera + a video camera )

@ET2 - DR at 100 view 22MP is not the same as it would be at 2MP, the RAW video might have better as it trades spatial resolution away for less noise in shadows and the highlight levels still have to remain the same and Alexa and such are more like 2MP to compare to than 22MP (that said I'm sure the Alexa is no doubt better in many ways but all the same this is utterly mind blowing and nothing else remotely like it comes close)

If people watch two video samples on You-Tube, both streamed at 5mbps, but one originally based on the 50mbps MOV h.264 files the 5D normally uses, and the other based on 90mbps RAW, which must later be compressed anyway, would they see any difference? Most of the difference would probably owe to other filter effects applied in the edit process. RAW might be more flexible for complex commercial studio editing, but of no more use to anyone else than to have an 18-wheel truck in the driveway.

If you did absolutely no post work to either files, then indeed you'd see little difference (except in high movement scenes), but as soon as you start "grading" your files, the difference will be great. Read to any jpg vs RAW debate, and it's the same deal.

lowest common denominator, but the best phone still I believe unless you need more than a phone. I own a galaxy note II and I absolutely love it. Nevertheless it lack the reliability and ergonomics of and iPhone by a long shot.

FS700 is very nice for slow mo, but actually the image in raw on the hacked 5D Mark III is much more cinematic looking. The FS700 costs £8000 here in the UK, the 5D Mark III is £2500. Big difference! Sony do need to improve video on their DSLRs, they are behind Canon and Panasonic by a considerable margin when it comes to image quality. RX1 is such a lovely stills camera. Such a shame there's such a big gap from the stills to video quality on a premium flagship camera.

jkoch2 There are at least three good reasons to want 4K recording even if neither you or anyone else has a 4K monitor:

1. Downsampling 4K to 2K improves image quality substantially2. Recording at a higher resolution allows you to crop the footage and still produce full HD.3. Green screen work and effects compositing look a lot better when done at a higher resolution and downsampled.

ML makes Canon look like a bunch of old men more worried about what to order for lunch than changing the world. But changing the world is what Canon could be doing if they wanted too. As with the 5D2 and video, Canon had no clue what they had then and no clue now.

One would think Canon would just buy out Magic lantern, or their engineers, and put this stuff into their camera's to begin with? I know, crazy thought to make a product to max out it's abilities, when someone else can just take your product and make it better for you. That doesn't make you look foolish, does it?

jkoch2 - you're repeating your one-track mind over and over. I understand you have no perspective into the world of indie filmmaking and the impact this camera has. Please do us all a huge favor and read on EOSHD and their prior blogs. Especially about movies shot with ML version of GH2 that are now showing in the movie theaters or the 4K cameras that are being built and used for filmmakers. Even if you don't like the 4K or have no need for it, take a look at the change in DR as well as the sharpness and details of the video created.

But as you said some people all they need is the video or photo from their iphones and this new is meaningless to them

i tried to download the ML stuff but its dated 2012 and says mkii, you would think that they updated their web page and be clear on the info, then before i even attempted to try ML raw whatever i found out you can not even see the files unless your on a darn PC, hmmm; sounds like a mess and you need the older 1.13 version on your camera to update.

anyone fill me in on this, was i too excited and went to the wrong website?